H S TREOHAN Vs. HINDUSTAN KOKOKU WIRE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against order dated November 1986, of Shri J.M. Malik, Rent Controller, Delhi, by which he had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground of eviction covered by Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The facts that there exists relationship of landlord tenant between the parties and that premises comprising of the ground floor of house No. D-293, Defence Colony, New Delhi, having been let out to the respondent for residential purpose only and that petitioner-landlord is the owner of the property in question are not disputed before me. The Controller had negatived the ground of bonafide requirement for residence on the ground that the landlord and his family members are in possession of reasonably suitable alternate accommodation and the landlord does not bonafide require the demised premises for occupation as residence for himself or for any family members dependent upon him. These findings of the Controller have been challenged by the landlord.

(3.) As per averments in the petition, the premises in question were let out originally to the respondent with effect from July 20, 1973 and a new lease deed was executed on April 18, 1979. However, in evidence it has come out that in fact, the premises stood let out to the respondent for the last 16-17 years prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The eviction petition was filed on July 13, 1982. The case set up by the petitioner, in brief, was that the petitioner's family comprises of himself, his wife who was aged about 60 years at the time of filing of the petition and was stated to be having serious hrt disease, and one married son, his wife and one child, and second son who was employed in Army and was, at the relevant time, posted in field area while his family comprised of his wife and two children. The petitioner has another married son, who is admittedly living in USA while two daughters of the petitioner also are married and are living with their husbands and families separately. The petitioner and his family members admittedly were in occupation of the first floor which has similar accommodation as is available on the ground floor and one garage on the ground floor. The barsati floor, which I will call 'second floor' because there appears independent set available on the second floor. At the time of filing the petition the said barsati floor was also in possession of the landlord. The petitioner pleaded that due to petitioner as were as his wife suffering from heart disease they have been advised not to climb stairs and thus, the demised premises which are located on the ground floor are bonafide needed for their occupation. It was also pleaded that barsati floor is not suitable to the needs of the petitioner and their family members as the same cannot be conveniently used for lack of better water supply and also due to extreme heat in summer.